Why planes were not used.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
What am i supposed to be seeing in that picture..whats your point?

This is the image of where the exit hole should be. Please tell me where a nosecone came through, or anything else for that matter..

What you're saying is that somehow somebody was able to create a fake image of a commerical airliner hitting WTC2, then blow a hole on the south face in the exact shape and exact location to match the fake image of the airplane.

Next, the charade continued with a fake image of debris exiting out the north face of WTC2. However, these clever fraudsters actually blew a hole in the north face of WTC2, but somehow forgot to make a hole in the north face of match the debris that was seen coming out of the hole.

As much as I believe there was a conspiracy re 9/11, I don't think this is it.

Nick have you read a past thread about those weird lights on point of impact? Not the famous flash but the pusling small lights?
Also it does makes more sense if you beleive the towers were brought down by demolition a real plane would have had to many variables. Did you notice how the building exploded just before collapsing at the exact same point the plane hit?
Check this video out and let me know if you can hear the plane, you can hear the chopper but not the plane. Its just another youtube video so take it as it is.
One thing I don't understand is the reasoning of the nose cone, we were not there so we cannot evaluate. Well you take as evidence all of the other videos (poorly made) but with in this case no even if you have 2 clear video evidence so lets just forget about it.
Anyway for what is worth:

shrunkensimon


First of all, do you notice how deceptive the people that brought that picture you posted are? Do you *NOT* notice how they are zooming in on only ONE area of that damage, then making the next leap to say there is NO HOLE?

I see in this picture much more damage, then the localized area you put up. Lets see the WHOLE area up close and not just one little localized area before making conclusions.





I want an answer to how a hologram is reflecting sunlight? Also as to why the hologram decided to tilt in mid air? Leaving a tilted wing marked entry hole?







[edit on 19-5-2007 by talisman]

Probably just an illusion but that plane doesn't look symmetrical.

And the plane it self looks all crooked and out of contemporary state.

Not just because it's tilted on an angle either...

Probably just because the image quality is very poor.

I am not just saying this because i am open to the no plane theory. I am simply saying what i see with the picture, unbiased.

Originally posted by piacenza
Nick have you read a past thread about those weird lights on point of impact?

No, I haven't seen these posts.

Also it does makes more sense if you beleive the towers were brought down by demolition a real plane would have had to many variables. Did you notice how the building exploded just before collapsing at the exact same point the plane hit?

No, I didn't notice this.

Check this video out and let me know if you can hear the plane, you can hear the chopper but not the plane. Its just another youtube video so take it as it is.

The video was shot from the north at a fairly decent distance away. The plane approached from the south from behind the WTCs. It is reasonable to me that the sound of the approaching plane was shielded by the WTCs and lessened by the distance.

One thing I don't understand is the reasoning of the nose cone, we were not there so we cannot evaluate. Well you take as evidence all of the other videos (poorly made) but with in this case no even if you have 2 clear video evidence so lets just forget about it.

I don't believe it was the nose cone that exited the other side of the building. Either something real actually exited the building, or the entire image is fake. However, the fact that there is damage on the other side of the building makes me conclude that what was seen exiting the building was probably real.

Has anyone else noticed that the people who have put forward this *NO PLANE THEORY* or *HOLOGRAM*, they happen to be people who have either worked for the Bush Admin as in Morgan Reynolds, or Mi6 as in David Shayler or others who have formerly did work for the CIA.

I find this a bit too coincidental. I believe they are disinformation trying to confuse the issue.

You see as soon as someone talks about buidling 7 not hit by a plane, people will LUMP that with the other NO PLANE THEORY. Once someone hears the buzz word ---NO PLANE-- It confuses the pot.


So ask yourself. Is the person who is trying to convince me of this theory, has this person ever worked for the CIA?

And *IF* it was true what they are saying, they would be revealing a closely guarded secret. Do you really think they would be allowed to continue doing so?

Of course not.

The simple answer to this is, the fact you see former Gov people or Mi6 people supporting this, the more reason to suspect it.

Don't you think that they might actually tell the truth instead than being disinfo agent?

Actually, reverse psychology could be at work here.

Make sure that what really happened is ridiculed to the core so that people think the theory is just to discredit the truth movement while in reality it could be the truth they are hiding.

They have done this method in the past, mostly with the UFO phenomena.

We don't know yet and we will probabbly do not know anything for another 20 yrs, I beleive that they left us so many clues around, almost like a puzzle.
I think the final man got sick of what he was doing and left us some very clear proofs, we are simply denying them or not looking right at them.
I think the smoking gun its still around, hard to be found but possible.
They are in the second step of denial laughing at the truth whatever it is...

piacenza

Stop and think about what I am saying. The people that you find supporting this theory happen to have worked for either the CIA, MI6 or the Bush Admin.

Now, you turn around and see this somehow supporting the theory?

Incorrect. Think and think hard. *IF* there was any truth to HOLOGRAMS then these people who are spilling this would no longer be with us. They would be letting out STATE SECRETS end of story, no debate.

There is no way around this hard fact.



[edit on 19-5-2007 by talisman]

Talisman, i don't think you understand.. we are not talking about holograms. There were no planes (what you see is CGI inserted in realtime).

And for the record, i am no disinfo agent, nor do i work for the government.. im a 20yr old student studying at University.

shrunkensimon


Why is there NOT ONE CGI expert who supports this view? How do you get around the fact that many people in NEW YORK that day saw a plane go into the Trade Towers?

On the Naudet brothers film, the Fireman look up at the noise of a JET GOING by before it proceeds to hit the first buidling.

There is not one Special effects expert who has worked with the very best on films that would support you. NOT ONE. The reason is that it is much to difficult to do what you guys think would be just some 'cut and paste job'.

The hard fact is many people saw a plane. That you can't get around.



[edit on 20-5-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
Why is there NOT ONE CGI expert who supports this view? How do you get around the fact that many people in NEW YORK that day saw a plane go into the Trade Towers?

Thats a fact is it? Why should i trust "eye witnesses", who are known to be notoriously unreliable, and are easy to manipulate using standard techniques, such as the power of suggestion. How can you claim to know what "they" saw, aswell as just saying "they".

Originally posted by talisman
On the Naudet brothers film, the Fireman look up at the noise of a JET GOING by before it proceeds to hit the first buidling.

Yes, how coveinient that they just happened to be filming in the correct location to be able to see the impact.. interesting that in the clip you only see 4-6 people..just as they pan to the towers, they do not capture any people on that street... i wonder why

Originally posted by talisman
The hard fact is many people saw a plane. That you can't get around.

Im sure thats what they will tell you, but again, do you really trust what someone else has seen? Trust no one.

Well gee, the fact that there were no people around CERTAINLY couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that they were looking at a GAS LEAK now could it. Oh wait! That was faked too, so they could be standing there conveniently and catch the CGI plane with real jet noise that hits right as the bomb that somehow leaves wing marks goes off in the building.

Zaphod58, can you re-write what you just wrote into present modern day English please, i didn't get any of that.

Since you mentioned the wing marks.. i can not find a high-res photo of the impact damage at the moment, but some of the steel columns look like they have literally exploded from the inside of the column out.

Also, to think that aluminium wings can sheer through steel columns..thats a pretty bold claim in itself IMHO.

I SAID that there were no people in the street because the FDNY was investigating a GAS LEAK. Or was that planned too, just to have a video camera there so they could catch the CGI plane going overhead? As for the wing marks, that hole looks just like the shape of a 767 going through the steel.

shrunkensimon

Thats a fact is it? Why should i trust "eye witnesses", who are known to be notoriously unreliable, and are easy to manipulate using standard techniques, such as the power of suggestion. How can you claim to know what "they" saw, aswell as just saying "they"

First of all this is wrong. Eyewitness testimony that is corraborating testimony is considered one of the most strongest pieces of Legal or Historical evidence.

What you are talking about is people who get wrong the secondary details, but when there are many people agreeing on the primary details then that is considered reliable.

If what your were saying was true, then NO COURT OF LAW in the world would be calling witnesses!

The courts 'weed through' the testimony that contradict. Historians do this, Jury's in court have to deal with this.

But when you have a NUMBER OF PEOPLE SAYING The same thing, then this becomes strong.

Example.

If 10 people told me that a car crashed at the intersection, but disagree on the color of the car.

How does that take away from the crash?

If one person saw a Jeep, how does that take away from the crash?

You take the majority of testimony and compare it.

We do that constantly in the legal system, it is done all over the world.

Now you through out this 'people are eays to manipulate'. There is NOT ONE SHRED OF PROOF of this concerning a plane hitting the towers.

How do you know YOU aren't being manipulated by people into believing that a CARTOON hit the towers?

Yes, how coveinient that they just happened to be filming in the correct location to be able to see the impact.. interesting that in the clip you only see 4-6 people..just as they pan to the towers, they do not capture any people on that street... i wonder why

So? The camera was actually far away and didn't get the best shot. In a city of New York where Millions of Millions of people are, people are filming on any given day. Statistically speaking your point is moot.


So now you think the NAUDET brothers are somehow *IN* on this as well?

You don't have any special effects person from Industrial Light and Magic nor any special effects house who will back you up on this. The reason special effects experts who worked on film and the best systems in the world don't back up this theory is simple.

9/11 was no special effect.

It happened, it was real. Who was responsible is a different argument.

To this day all I have seen from people who claim something like CGI or Holograms haven't put up one piece of HIGH QUALITY VIDEO.

You wanna know why?

Because once you see what they are trying to pass off as evidence in high quality you will quickly see they are taking you for a ride.

Next time people try and sucker you in with this, ask them.

'Can you please give me the original source'?
'Can you give me a good quality clip that is not awfully compressed'?

See if anyone can do this for you.

Demand that, if these people are really after the 'truth' I think asking this is a reasonable request.

I have suspicions when time and time again, I see people telling....

"LOOK!" "There is NO PLANE IN THE VIDEO!"

Then I notice how horrible the quality is.

That my friend is your sure way to know who really is trying to manipulate you.








[edit on 20-5-2007 by talisman]

[edit on 20-5-2007 by talisman]

Thanks for that eyesore of a post talisman.. if your going to rebutal something, at least have the decency to write it out properly..

I admit that 1 week ago i had not even seriously considered the no-plane theory. But something told me i was overlooking it, which is why i came to this thread and asked people for some evidence. I then went away and did hours of research into it, and now i realise i was overlooking possibly the most fundamental aspect of 9/11.

To think that the 9/11 truth movement has not been infiltrated by the CIA etc is nieve. They infiltrate just about every movement they consider to be a threat to "national security". You see, the no-planes theory is ridiculed by the majority of "truthlings".. you think its coincidence it got that way? The truth movement has been steered away from the truth. Would you not expect this no?

To think these guys commited such a crime, and wouldn't follow up on those trying to unravel it.. of course they would. They will do everything they can to send people off on the wrong tangent of research.

You talk about videos being manipulated.. funny that, because i've seen the raw footage from one news chopper which shows NO plane hitting the tower, and the correspondant on the ground saying he SAW NO PLANE, but then getting corrected by the people back in the office who "saw" the plane.


Also, how do you explain the wings penetrating steel columns? You did not answer that question.

So what SHOULD have happened then? The planes should have bounced of? Wing spars are huge, and strong to support the weight of the fuel, the engines, and fuselage.

shrunkensimon

Post that "RAW" footage in good quality please.